HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Writ Restoration Application No v. 1

Dr. Hari Mohan Saxena son of Shri Bishan Sahay Saxena, resident of B-1, Maharao Bhim Singh Nagar, Kota Junction, Kota-02 (Rajasthan).

2. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Mini Secretariat, Jaipur through its Registrar. ----Non-Applicants/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sankalp Vijay, Advocate, Ms. Tanvisha Pant, Advocate For Respondent(s) : .. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA 23/04/2025 Order This restoration application has been filed seeking restoration of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.806/2018.

2. By an order dated 28th July 2023, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.806/2018 was dismissed for want of prosecution.

3. Before we proceed further, we need to indicate that correct address of some of the respondents in the Special Appeal was not [2025:RJ-JP:17221-DB] (2 of 5) [WRES-624/2024] provided and, therefore, fresh notice was issued to the unserved respondents vide order dated 12th July 2021. On the next two dates of hearing, that is, on 23rd March 2021 and 11th January 2021, hearing of this Special Appeal was adjourned because the appellants could not served notice upon the respondent no.1. This will also not be out of the context to mention that on 8th December 2020 no one had appeared for the appellants. Further proceedings in this Special Appeal would indicate that the appellants casually prosecuted this case and repeatedly sought adjournments.

4. In the restoration application, a statement has been made that on account of his personal hardship and medical illness, the learned Additional Advocate General who was conducting this case at the relevant time could not appear in the Court. However, there is no separate affidavit filed along with this restoration application as to the ground urged in para no.2 of this restoration application.

5. This Court would normally accept the statements made on affidavit and we have no reason to disbelieve such statement made in the restoration application. But then, the appellants were required to supply better particulars by filing at least a supplementary affidavit and that has not been done in the present case.

6. Even so, the restoration application is not to be allowed as a matter of course and this Court shall examine the matter at least to have prima facie satisfaction as to whether there is any merit in the matter. For that purpose, we have glanced through the order passed by the writ Court. However, we do not find any reason to interfere in this matter and would dismiss the present restoration petition. [2025:RJ-JP:17221-DB] (3 of 5) [WRES-624/2024]

7. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellants is that the decision in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma and Others (1998) 5 SCC 87 was distinguished by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent decision rendered in A. Francis Vs. Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Tamilnadu (2014) 13 SCC

8. Just to mention, the decision in A. Francis (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Court when the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8206/2013 was rendered on 9th September 2015. Therefore, the argument made on behalf of the appellants that the judgment rendered by the High Court in ignorance of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be per incuriam does not, therefore, require a detailed discussion. Secondly, there is no explanation by the appellants who filed review petition after a delay of 482 days as to why the decision in A. Francis (supra) rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of the writ Court before order dated 9th September 2015 came to be passed by the writ Court.

8. Even on merits, we find prima facie case in favour of the respondent- employee who was appointed on the post of Principal, P.G. College, Jalore vide order dated 18th March 2000. He retired on 30th December 2001 after attaining the age of superannuation, but by that time, he was not granted higher salary of the post on which he had worked [refer, "Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma and Others (1998) 5 SCC 87"]. Now this shall be an issue on facts as to number of years the employee had worked on a particular post. On this issue, the [2025:RJ-JP:17221-DB] (4 of 5) [WRES-624/2024] Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur rendered a decision in favour of the employee.

9. The writ Court has accorded its concurrence to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan observing as under:- "The instant case at hand is a case where the respondent-employees were called upon to work/officiate on higher post in the pay scale of Principal, they were holding prior to posting on higher post as would be evident from the orders. The case relied upon by the Tribunal is a case of somewhat similar nature where the respondent-employee therein (Mr. Hariom Sharma), was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer-1, though as stop gap arrangement, and the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on the post, as stop gap arrangement, he would be entitled to the higher salary and other attendant benefits and denial would be contrary to law and also against the public policy. The respondent-employees were posted on the post of Principal, Post Graduate College/Joint Director, a higher post, in their own pay scale while working as Principal, Degree College/Joint Director, vide respective order and joined in compliance thereof. The respondent- employees retired attaining the age of superannuation, but were not accorded higher salary of the post they worked on. For the reasons and discussions hereinabove, the writ petitions are devoid of any substance and lack in merit, and therefore, deserve to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly."

10. Quite evidently, the reference to the decision in "Hariom Sharma" made by the writ Court was not the only ground on [2025:RJ-JP:17221-DB] (5 of 5) [WRES-624/2024] which challenge to the order dated 4th December 2012 passed by the appellate Tribunal has failed.

11. For the foregoing reasons, D.B. Writ Restoration Application No.624 of 2024 is dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J CHANDAN /111